OBAMA, TERRORISTS AND OTHER NONSENSE

While announcing the 9/11 terrorists will be tried in a Federal court, the fact that 5 other terror suspects will apparently be facing military tribunals was under-reported.  If terrorism is a crime, why not try all terrorists in civilian courts?  If military tribunals are not inherently "unjust", why not try all terrorists in military tribunals?  AG Holder did acknowledge the 9/11 attacks were an act of war but said it was also a federal crime.  His rationale for the horrendous decision to try KSM et al in civilian court was that "we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in federal court.”  IS THIS ADMINISTRATION IN TOUCH WITH REALITY?
FACT:  The risk of failing to obtain justice are higher in civilian court.
FACT:  The government must expose sensitive secrets to public scrutiny if the defense requests them in civilian court.


IN THE "YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME" CATEGORY:  1. The Defense Department sent a memo thru the Pentagon stating that this administration prefers to avoid using terms like "Long War" or "Global  War on Terror" and to please use "Overseas Contingency Operation."  2.  The same day Obama signed an executive order banning the use of interrogation techniques not approved in the Army Field Manual White House Field Counsel Gregg Craig "acknowledged concerns from intelligence officials that new restrictions on CIA methods might be unwise and indicated the White House might be open to allowing the use of methods other than the 19 techniques allowed for the military."  Huh?  Let me get this straight.  Techniques not approved in the Army Field Manual are banned but the administration is open to using them anyway?